InsertGenericTitle. . I ttr gr ill! aiit M til He tells you that modem neuroscience has proved that all ear actions and decisions are merely the machinations of free will lies book
Upload
Login or register

InsertGenericTitle

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
I ttr
gr ill! aiit
M til
He tells you that modem neuroscience has proved
that all ear actions and decisions are merely the
machinations of a predetermined universe and that
our of free will ' is naught but a comforting
illusion,
If you agree with his hypothesis, turn to page ‘II
If you disagree, turn to page 72
...
+893
Views: 33917 Submitted: 07/06/2014
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (131)
[ 131 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#108 - fourchinsbrah
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [+] (3 replies)
stickied by butterduck
>im all for thinking there may be a God
>im all for science that has never proven that God is NO

mfw either side claims 1st place
#123 to #108 - anon id: 5754104a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Science doesn't really give a flying **** about god. It's secular by definition.
It's only when it finds reality conflict with the dogma of a certain theology, those believers go *******.(creationism, flat earthers, geocentrists,...)

Science can't prove anything(so the page in the book is silly and showing of bad science). You always have the problem of induction, and the focus should always be on falsification(and thus disproving), to eliminate biases.

User avatar #125 to #123 - fourchinsbrah
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
>Science doesn't really give a flying **** about god.
im impressed anon
> It's secular by definition.
what is a strawman anyways?
>It's only when it finds reality conflict with the dogma of a certain theology, those believers go *******.(creationism, flat earthers, geocentrists,...)
literally strawmanning as ****....
>It's only when it finds reality conflict with the dogma of a certain theology, those believers go *******.(creationism, flat earthers, geocentrists,...)
lemme whip out muh merriamwebstr and stilll realize that atheists=creationists in realist terms

sign the **** in you cunt

User avatar #129 to #125 - butterduck [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
dafuq is strawman.
User avatar #127 - butterduck [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
stickied by butterduck
Tis was my first OC
#17 - faulther
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I soooooooooooo miss these from my childhood......
#27 to #17 - drekinn
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#19 to #17 - pkmntrainerdani
Reply +139 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Who the hell misses thumbnails?
#24 to #19 - Encarna
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I think he was going for this.
#119 to #24 - anon id: 26d63a41
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Does he got nabooti?
User avatar #121 to #119 - bumbojumbo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
oh yes he do
#94 to #24 - anon id: 8cc8cb78
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
"YOU ARE GOING TO DIE"
Sounds like a fun time
User avatar #101 to #94 - vatra
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I want to read that one actually. It's the only one that caught my attention.
#58 to #19 - Kingsly
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
This person, probably.
#104 to #58 - kokanum
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#65 to #58 - Orc
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Fak ahff
User avatar #69 to #19 - PvtToucher
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
People tortured by the Vietnamese.
#75 - mrdrpage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
**mrdrpage rolls 457**
User avatar #76 to #75 - heartbleed
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
**heartbleed rolls 518** I think you mean this.
#88 to #75 - desacabose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
**desacabose rolls 321**
#95 to #75 - anon id: 7bdaa117
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
**anonymous rolls 813**
#102 to #95 - rayjax
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#117 to #75 - ShizMyNiz
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#100 to #75 - dehnoobshow
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
**dehnoobshow rolls 763**   
yfw my roll
**dehnoobshow rolls 763**
yfw my roll
#109 to #100 - anon id: ce848593
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
comment #100?
User avatar #77 to #75 - emperorskittles
Reply +92 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
**emperorskittles rolls 666** I know I am not going to get it right
User avatar #78 to #77 - emperorskittles
Reply +15 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Thanks Satan
#81 to #77 - dontgiveafyet
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#96 to #77 - mentlgen
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#93 to #77 - darthblam
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Damn it, do you have any idea what you've done?!
#86 to #77 - rdnyan
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#82 to #77 - atma
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I foresee good things in your predetermined universe.
I foresee good things in your predetermined universe.
User avatar #110 to #77 - moriorinvictus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Hail stan.
#105 to #77 - nurples
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#130 to #77 - kameken
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/10/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #128 to #77 - butterduck [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
GJ m8.
#124 to #77 - norkas
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#116 to #77 - willindor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
User avatar #115 to #77 - mcpimpin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
**mcpimpin rolls 944** not every day you see trips
#113 to #77 - supermandan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#107 to #77 - demonruler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
You got my number
#106 to #77 - emperorskittles
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#103 to #77 - rayjax
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
User avatar #91 to #77 - godofpoptarts
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
You done goof'd kid.
#84 to #77 - anon id: 57fd202d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#83 to #77 - anon id: 57fd202d
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Careful there now.
#79 to #77 - mrdrpage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#22 - lobbert
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
#114 to #22 - dinocaster
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #4 - Mintberrycrunsh
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
Is this from a real book? If yes, pls tell me which one because I must have!
User avatar #13 to #4 - whiteniggers
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
it's a comic strip joke from a newspaper
User avatar #112 to #13 - Mintberrycrunsh
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
dangit!
User avatar #5 to #4 - goldenfairy
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
It seems to be from one of "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, however I have failed to find which one exactly.
User avatar #12 to #5 - shadowkingdr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
it's not from the choose your own adventure seris though, they never used that artist
User avatar #118 to #12 - goldenfairy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
You are right.
One of articles did say it was some other artist's drawing of single page from that book.
Drawing is different but the book is same, it just won't have same picture and it'll be on different page (probably).
#80 - ohshoot
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I didn't know Mass Effect was a book.
#99 to #80 - dehnoobshow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
The options are to gain Paragon/Renegade, and the Morality Check options shape the game. (Morality Check Options: Blue text and Red text.)
User avatar #7 - xwhitewingx
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
*turns to the next page*
User avatar #8 to #7 - helterskeletor
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
What if this is page 71?
User avatar #9 to #8 - spikethedragon
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
But it says page 56 at the top.
#15 to #9 - helterskeletor
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
I am blind.
#11 to #9 - anon id: b4798d72
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
What if they numbered it 55,56,72 to trick you? Make you think you have a choice when you do not?
#18 to #11 - anon id: 0a10e9d1
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
What if its not even a book but a pamphlet?!
User avatar #98 - commontroll
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Simple solution, you toss the book out the window.
#2 - anon id: 6607cac6
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
i can close the book.
#10 to #2 - anon id: b4798d72
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/06/2014) [-]
Ah, but consider this: you were always going to close the book.
And if you do "something else" instead: you were always going to do "that something else" too.
No matter what you do, the fact that in the future you will have done said action i.e. it is in the past means that it is inescapable, as the past is fixed the present is just the past of the future . I could only have ever typed this to you. Why? Because I chose to? No. Because I was always going to do so.
That, Mr Anonderson, is the sound of inevitability.
User avatar #20 to #10 - Kairyuka
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
But then there's literally no difference between "free will" and "predetermined fate" and those two terms lose their overall meaning
User avatar #16 to #2 - angelicdemon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I could set it on fire.
#21 to #2 - mayoroftownsville
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Sartre approves
User avatar #23 - runescapewasgood
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Freewill and predestination can very well go hand in hand, however. We may choose our future, but it may also be preknown even before we do it. Just because someone knows what we're about to do, it doesn't mean that we aren't making the choice.
User avatar #25 to #23 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
If the knowledge of what you're about to do is known, there's no choice. You have the illusion of making a choice - and the illusion of free will is important to acknowledge (what's the alternative?) - but your "choice" is predetermined.
User avatar #29 to #25 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Not at all. It just means that it is known what choice you will be making. It is yours to make, and your desires affect the choice. It has just already transpired, and someone can look at that. It seems like a paradox, but it isn't.
User avatar #31 to #29 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Your desires are effected by your experiences, which are effected by other laws of physics and causation, and someone got a hold of this information beforehand. It's not a choice because given that set of circumstances and cosmology, you will always do B instead of A. So you aren't making a choice.
User avatar #34 to #31 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
You are distinctly making a choice. It's all about perspective. You don't know what you will choose, so for you, it's a choice. For someone who knows everything, it's not a choice, because it has been made already. But it was made whenever the circumstances led you to make that choice. If circumstances had been different, the choice would have been too. ^.^
User avatar #36 to #34 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
So for you, you have the illusion of making a choice, but if someone knows everything, they know what it will be? In that case, the illusion is not the default defacto truth of the situation, the objective is. I'm not denying the importance of the subjective, but you cannot call the subjective 'objective'.
User avatar #38 to #36 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
That's not entirely accurate. There is, of course, an objective truth, but regardless of who is viewing it, it becomes immediately subjective. Even if this all-seeing 'observer' knows what choice you will make, he may only know that choice, not the circumstances that led to it. Or, he may see the view change, while still always having an accurate prediction of what it will be. Correct?
User avatar #40 to #38 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Well then he wouldn't be "all seeing" now, would he?
User avatar #42 to #40 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
In the first scenario, but he can be fully omnipotent in the second, and always know the choice, regardless of if it is in 'a' state or 'b' state. You know?
User avatar #44 to #42 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Whether the observer knows what led up to the choice or just the outcome of the choice doesn't effect the things that influenced that choice. It might not even be practically possible to calculate on that level, but it remains that the choice is mathematically predictable.

Everything occurs because something caused it to occur. Whether it's an infinite regress or it started somewhere isn't a question I can answer, but looking at the way the universe functions currently, that is how causation seems to work. I have yet to see any reason why the human mind would be immune to the law of causation.
User avatar #48 to #44 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
You are absolutely correct, but the thing is that while a may lead to b, for person 1,
a will lead to c for person 2.
Add to that the fact that every experience ultimately affects the outcome of a decision, means that given the nature of the thing, the choice must effectively always be in flux. It may be possible to predict, at any given moment, the outcome of some effect. However, in the long run, it is always changing. This is really what the notion of free will refers to. This ability of a mindset to change with time in such a way as to make the resulting person different than he was originally.
User avatar #51 to #48 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
It may not be effectively possible to predict anything, but if you did have all of the data ever, then you could predict everything. If it wasn't an infinite regress, and there was a singular point, then starting there you could determine everything. You have a finite amount of energy and mass, and with regards to certain forces, a specific incident pushes all of that into action. At that moment, you can calculate how every micro-ounce of mass will interact with eachother.

And if you can do it from the first moment, you can do it from any moment - assuming you have the data and the ability to calculate it.
User avatar #56 to #51 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
However, that also uses the assumption that there was in fact a singular point when the universe was in such a state. Notice how under our current system, we can predict what happened many trillionths of a second after the big bang, but nothing before? It is counter-intuitive to assume that there could be a transition from a state of absolute nothing, to a state of matter. Something, in some way, was there before. Which means that existance in some way stretches into the infinite retroactively as well. It follows that we would have a situation where an observer with infinite knowledge would be percieving an infinite universe, and that just doesn't work, right?

... I mean.. ignoring our whole omniscient observer thing. and the whole infinite universe thing.

But in reference to your point, we have yet to be able to calculate the first moment. Your proposition also implies that there is a way to accurately predict random action, which can be mathematically simulated, but not replicated in any efficient manner. A human is capable, even though we may be inclined to fall into patterns, of producing random numbers, and by extension, to cause random effects at any given moment to actions in the future.
A mathematical formula that cracked at it hard enough could eventually find the correct simulation that would apply to the event, but it wouldn't happen on a consistent basis. Even this omniscient observe would have to be able to account for a sudden, chaotic change in the way things will be. At any level, there will be this capacity for sudden, non-formulaic change.
User avatar #59 to #56 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
It doesn't matter if there's a singular point or not, and - given the scale of that particular situation - I'm not going to make a decision on that situation either way. I'm not qualified to make that decision.

And otherwise, the only reason math can be inconsistent is because of a change in the situation or any other lack of data. Were assuming you have all the data. Nothing is random. Look at psychological profilers, no selection of numbers is random, even at request. Something, no matter how miniscule or obscure, influenced your selection of a random number. Everything is influenced by something else.
User avatar #61 to #59 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
But in that case, look at mathematical random number generators. We can identify every bit of code that produces the numbers. But there is no way to know in advance what that number will be. Not for us, and it turns an omniscient observer into someone who just watches things play out, and most of the time, he's right. Like 99.99 percent of the time. He can predict anything that will happen, except what numbers a string of code will produce.
User avatar #62 to #61 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
If you knew the state of the computer's parts and the location of every electron in the machine, it would very well be possible to calculate what number would come next.
User avatar #70 to #62 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I can only say this with certainty, it is impossible to say wether or not knowing all of those things would result in the knowledge of the outcome. If you can show me one way or the other, I'll sway on that, but there just isn't any way for us to know, right now.
User avatar #72 to #70 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Let's drop the scale a bit.

If you build a robot in a vacuum room, with no air resistance, then the robot applies a precise amount of pressure on a coin, you could calculate the machine to flip it head every time, right? Now just apply that to everything. It still works, just infinitely more complex.
User avatar #73 to #72 - fruitjuicedrink
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
That is not accurate. There is no way to compensate for any number of outside forces, forever. It may be able to flip head almost every time, but on a long enough scale, you can expect to see a tails result. The problem with infinity, is that if it is possible for either thing to happen, eventually either thing will happen.
User avatar #74 to #73 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Well goddammit, then, let's give the scientist the data for those outside influences. The pull of the moon, seismic shifts, the minute changes in earth's gravity, the effect of the planet's rotation.

The scientist has all that data and a program to compute the pressure to input on the robot to flip the coin.

It doesn't have to be possible to gather that data or practical to be possible. I can't do long division, but it's still possible.
User avatar #89 to #74 - fruitjuicedrink
0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
In a completely non-practical sense, I concede. You are correct.
User avatar #28 to #25 - hottamaleez
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I do my taxes
the government knows this
Next year, before I am able to send my taxes in, I commit suicide
Why didn't I turn in my taxes?
User avatar #32 to #28 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I don't know what your point is supposed to be.
User avatar #26 to #23 - tomowrath
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
my ******* head hurts..
User avatar #30 to #23 - redeadhunter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I think that they're even more intertwined than that. Seeing as the brain explicitly has separate portions for voluntary and involuntary actions, I think our futures are predetermined in a VERY general sense, but we have the ability to steer it in a way. We react to our surroundings in an initially primal way, but after that we can decide how to handle it.
User avatar #33 to #30 - demandsgayversion
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
But doesn't everything affect those decisions? Your environment and past, the air pressure at the time, and such? Everything can be calculated.
User avatar #35 to #33 - CrowbarNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Yes, but there are always moments where you have to choose between many options and you have a near equal desire for each. You can calculate it, but there will be factors that split your calculations along different paths, that could lead to completely different results.
User avatar #37 to #35 - demandsgayversion
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
But those factors already happened and cannot be retroactively changed. So, if the hypothetical super computer being monster knew what to look for, they could find those factors and add that to the calculation.
User avatar #39 to #37 - CrowbarNinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
We're going off of the assumption something can calculate exactly what a human will do in its life, i say that there are too many instances where there's a 50\50 chance a human will do something for you to accurately calculate a human life.
User avatar #41 to #39 - demandsgayversion
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
That's incredibly arrogant to think that in a universe of infinite calculation that a human can defy all logic and make a choice that it shouldn't.
User avatar #43 to #41 - CrowbarNinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Im saying that there are more than one thing it should do, but it can only choose one.
A child chooses pepsi over coke and gets beat up for it and is scarred for life, he then grows up to be a bully. The same child chooses coke instead, he doesnt get beat up, and therefore doesnt become a bully. Im saying that if you calculate a human life you would get hundreds of thousands of results, not one.
User avatar #45 to #43 - demandsgayversion
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
But based on that child's favorite color, or his taste buds, or the conditions surrounding the respective batches of coke or pepsi, or the way those cans are presented to the child, the child will choose one or the other.
User avatar #46 to #45 - CrowbarNinja
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
His favorite color is purple, he is 4 and never tasted either and they are just two buttons on a vending machine, the vending machine in for mountain dew.
User avatar #50 to #46 - demandsgayversion
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Then which button is on top or bottom, or left or right, or which button is shinier, or if he pressed it on accident the conditions that caused him to make that mistake - the way the wind was blowing, the position and texture of the tiny pebble he slipped on, the position of his hand as he fell....

No matter the situation in which the soda was obtained, there was a moment consisting of innumerable objects and forces that coalesced to result in a particular soda being consumed and enjoyed by that particular child at that particular moment - and if you had all that data in the second before the "choice", you could determine exactly what the outcome would be.
User avatar #52 to #50 - CrowbarNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Assuming free will is 100% nothing, i believe it is still a factor, just not 100%. I do think we have whims brought on by our own want (not need brought on by chemicles) to go "eh, **** it." Until im provided with said calculation, or some other proof that free will is nothing, i will stick with the answer of i dont know, but i like this the most.
User avatar #47 to #46 - CrowbarNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I see where you are going with this, and i agree to an extent, but at the same time, i feel our form of free will is at least a slight wild card.
User avatar #53 to #47 - demandsgayversion
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I understand the desire to believe that, and I love the concept for narrative purposes to make humans special - a common theme - but there's no reason to believe that. Given that everything follows a set of rules, there's no indication that humans break those rules - not even a cause for suspicion - so the default assumption should go with humans following the same laws as everything else rather than whichever idea you happen to prefer.
User avatar #54 to #53 - CrowbarNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Again, i think we can be calculated to a point, just like any animal or plant, we cant calculate a plants life, hell, we dont even know how plants experience life completely im pretty sure . calculating nonliving particles is easy in comparison.
User avatar #55 to #54 - demandsgayversion
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
We only can't calculate that because we don't know how. Humans. I don't know how to do long division anymore, but I know it's possible.
User avatar #57 to #55 - CrowbarNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
But you dont know that calculating us is possible, its like asking a medieval peasant if calculating the moons movement around the earth is possible. He doesnt know that the earth is round (or in our case that life is calculatable) therefore he cant truthfully say yes.
User avatar #60 to #57 - demandsgayversion
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Just because we can't do it doesn't make it impossible. We only lack the means of collecting that data in a timely manner and the power to accurately calculate it. Maybe humans couldn't make those calculations at all, but that doesn't matter at all. Choices are still influenced my a near infinite number of things that caused that "choice" to be "made".
#63 to #60 - CrowbarNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
And i've said free will could be part of the things that cause it. Again, not 100% of the choice. But with that i say i will agree to somewhat dissagree, and goonight. Thanks for the good discussion.
User avatar #64 to #63 - demandsgayversion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
So then your concept of "free will" is just a supernatural force with no aim or goal! That's just begging the question
User avatar #67 to #64 - CrowbarNinja
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
That just made this whole thing click, i gotcha, i dunno maybe.
User avatar #68 to #47 - ugottanked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
I also, believe in free will. i get what youre saying
User avatar #126 to #23 - cognosceteipsum
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/07/2014) [-]
Why are people looking at this as if it's the cosmological constant or something? This is pretty basic stuff